2012 (2) TMI 630 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Acquittal of the accused on the grounds of benefit of doubt.
2. Constitutional validity of Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959.

Summary:

1. Acquittal of the accused on the grounds of benefit of doubt:
The High Court acquitted the accused, a constable, who was charged u/s 302 and 307 of IPC and u/s 27 of the Arms Act, due to "irreconcilable inconsistency in the prosecution case." The High Court noted discrepancies between the testimonies of the alleged eyewitness (PW.9) and the Investigating Officer (PW.12). Specifically, PW.9 claimed to have disarmed the accused at the spot, while PW.12 stated that neither the accused nor the rifle was handed over to him on the date of the incident. Furthermore, only 7 out of 20 fired cartridges were recovered, and no bullets were found, which was deemed "very surprising." The Supreme Court found "no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal" given by the High Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, as the order was based on proper appreciation of evidence.

2. Constitutional validity of Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959:
The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, which mandates the death penalty for using prohibited arms or ammunition resulting in death. The Court found the provision to be "very wide" and lacking in guidelines, making it "unreasonable" and "unfair." The Court compared this to Section 302 of IPC, where death penalty is not mandatory but optional, and noted that Section 27(3) does not allow for judicial discretion or consideration of mitigating circumstances. The Court held that Section 27(3) is "violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution" and thus "void" under Article 13(2). The Court referenced international and domestic judgments, including Mithu v. State of Punjab, which struck down mandatory death penalties as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court declared Section 27(3) of the Arms Act "ultra vires the Constitution" and affirmed the High Court's judgment acquitting the Respondent.